The state already has a good head start in adjusting to new EPA carbon rules.

In this Feb. 25, 2010 file photo, a sea of stacks, pipes and storage tanks are amassed along the Houston ship channel in Houston. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan, File)

We're disappointed but not all that surprised by the knee-jerk opposition by 29 members of the Texas congressional delegation - including Democrats Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green from Houston - to President Barack Obama's proposed regulations to begin scaling back greenhouse gas discharges from the nation's power plants. They fired off a protest letter to the administration before the president had even unveiled the plan.

Perhaps they missed the latest installment of the Fox Network's widely praised science series "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" this weekend. Cosmos host, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, adroitly walked listeners through the accumulating evidence for the danger climate change poses to mankind. The presentation probably caused some heartburn over at Fox News, a bastion of climate-change deniers.

The goal is a 30-percent reduction nationally from 2005 carbon-discharge levels by 2030. Texas is currently far and away the leading bulk producer of carbon pollution among U.S. states. Because of the magnitude of Texas emissions, its target would be a 39 percent cut by 2030.

Far from draconian, the plan gives states much flexibility in deciding how to reduce carbon emissions. Options include greater reliance on natural gas-fueled plants and wind, solar- and nuclear-electric generation as well as using cap-and-trade systems to encourage energy producers to move to cleaner technologies. Coal plants could continue operating if their host state meets mandated emission cuts.

Texas already has a good head start in that direction with increasing use of gas-fired plants, which are cleaner and can rely on the new flood of cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing at shale deposits in the state. Last year, 63 percent of the state's electrical production was generated by sources other than coal. You would think our energy industries would embrace a proposal that expands natural gas markets.

Former EPA official and Sierra Club executive Al Armendariz believes Texas could easily meet the new standards by phasing out a handful of the dirtiest coal plants, many of which are already seasonally mothballed because of the industry preference for cheaper natural gas-generated electricity.

Although the letter from Texans in Congress to the EPA argued that climate policy should be legislated rather than carried out by executive order, both the House and Senate have failed to deal with the challenge, just as they have deadlocked on so many other vital issues in recent years. That inaction forced the Obama Administration to use executive orders to craft new fuel-efficiency standards for the auto industry and the new draft regulations for power plants.

As in the past, opponents are claiming the emissions restrictions will boost the price of electricity for everyone and damage the economy. They inflate cost estimates and ignore the already significant economic damage caused by rising temperatures and sea levels and the likelihood that the situation will drastically worsen in the coming decades if the status quo prevails.

If members of Congress feel bypassed, they have only themselves to blame. Perhaps they should stop writing letters and start writing legislation to address the growing threat of climate change.